After only a day and a half of deliberation that ended August 19, 2005, a Texas jury awarded over $253 million in damages in the nation’s first Vioxx trial. Robert Ernst, a 59 year old marathon runner and aerobics instructor, had taken Vioxx for less than seven months prior to his death. His family’s attorneys claimed that Merck & Co. Inc. knew that patients faced increased risk of heart problems after taking the painkiller, yet did not disclose this information. The jury found Merck & Co. negligent and awarded Ernst’s family $24.4 million in actual damages and $229 million in punitive damages. The final award is expected to be reduced to $26 million to comply with Texas’ statutory cap on damage awards. Merck plans to appeal.

During the precedent-setting Carol A. Ernst, et al. v. Merck & Co. Inc. trial, Merck contended that their painkiller Vioxx had nothing to do with Mr. Ernst’s death. However, the Ernst’s family attorney presented internal Merck documents that established that the drug giant’s own scientists were worried about the increased risk of heart attacks long before Vioxx was withdrawn from the market in September 2004. A leaked March 2000 communication between Merck & Co. scientists and the company’s patent department sought to have Vioxx reformulated with an anti-clotting agent to reduce the risk of heart problems and strokes. In 2001, Merck filed an application with the U.S. Patent Office for a new version of Vioxx that combined it with a thromboxane inhibitor to cause blood clotting and constriction of blood vessels. Unfortunately, Merck eventually dropped the project and the patent.

Jurors in the Ernst trial stated afterwards that they wanted to send a message to Merck & Co. to “respect us”. In addition to an avalanche of product-liability claims, the multibillion-dollar company faces Congressional and Justice Department investigations. Analysts predict that the Ernst verdict will have significant repercussions not only for Merck, but for the entire drug industry.

Merck’s attorneys plan to more clearly explain medical evidence, their own damaging internal documents and the marketing of Vioxx than they did in the first Vioxx trial in the next trial. Jury selection for the second Vioxx trial began in Merck Co.’s home state of New Jersey on September 12, 2005. The trial is underway. In the Frederick Humeston versus Merck & Co. litigation, a 60 year old postal worker and two-time Purple Heart winner suffered knee pain for years as the result of his Vietnam War wound. After taking the painkiller Vioxx for barely two months, he suffered a heart attack in 2001. Humeston survived his heart attack but suffered permanent heart damage, has constant fatigue, is worried about the increased risk of a second heart attack, takes multiple heart medicines and must comply with a restricted diet for the rest of his life. Humeston’s attorney said that his client was in excellent health prior to taking Vioxx; while Merck argues that the plaintiff’s age, weight, hypertension and inactivity caused his heart attack.

Merck’s first trial in federal court was slated to begin Nov. 28 in New Orleans; however, due to Hurricane Katrina, the judge is now working out of Houston. In this case, plaintiff Richard Irvin had only taken Vioxx for about a month before he died of a heart attack at age 53.

Janet, Jenner & Suggs is aware that before its recall, 20 million people took Vioxx for pain and arthritis relief. Instead of relief, many people’s health and lives have been jeopardized. Our attorneys are committed to protecting client rights and ensuring that the drug industry is held accountable for their products and how they are marketed to consumers. If you or a loved one has suffered a stroke, heart attack, heart failure, chest pain, blood clots, serious bleeding or other health problems associated with Vioxx use, please contact our office today. We can discuss your situation and advise you on your right to compensation.